Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft Open Source News

Microsoft Bans Open Source From the Windows Market 566

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the well-thats-not-very-sporting dept.
Blacklaw writes "Microsoft has raised the ire of the open source community with its Windows Marketplace licence by specifically refusing to allow software covered under an open licence to be distributed. The licence, which anyone wishing to distribute Windows, Windows Phone, or Xbox applications through the company's copy of Apple's App Store is required to agree to, is the usual torrent of legalese — but hides a nasty surprise for those who support open source ideals."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Bans Open Source From the Windows Market

Comments Filter:
  • "We own it" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheRealMindChild (743925) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @10:32AM (#35231576) Homepage Journal
    It is likely that Microsoft is asserting control over what you put up there. Sort of like when you upload your photo to site x and in the ToS they have "We reserve the right to use your picture in anyway we can possibly find to make money off of it" (probably not exact wording). I could be talking out of my ass too.
    • by fermion (181285)
      Generally this is a non-exclusive license for use of the product. This does not conflict with any OSS license I know of, as any license will allow the author to grant individual rights. The problem with OSS license is that they will, in general, prevent companies like MS from taking the software, putting a copyright on it, and preventing even the author from innovating on it.

      I wonder what the ramifications are going to be. For instance, from what I can tell, most of the engines for LaTex are OSS. Does

    • by aug24 (38229) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @11:16AM (#35232158) Homepage

      Take a look at:

      http://www.fsf.org/news/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement [fsf.org]

      It appears the most likely reason is that they* wish to add more terms and conditions to the download, and the GPL specifically forbids it. So rather than ease their terms for GPL, they just don't play.

      *they == both Apple and Microsoft, but presumably not Android Marketplace

      • by Carewolf (581105)

        The LGPL and BSD licenses are not incompatible with app stores, but MS has banned them all*

        (*) depending on your interpretation of the words used which seems deliberately vague.

        • by initdeep (1073290) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @12:42PM (#35233314)

          which is most likely due to the assertion that those developing apps probably don't even look at the license their using and would therefore potentially cause problems, just like the VLC issue was a problem for Apple.

          Rather than have to scrutinize each app that would contain Open Source code to determine which License is being used or rely on notoriously unreliable developers to follow rules on which OS licenses were acceptable, and thus open themselves to lawsuits/etc, they took the step of saying "not in our store" to prevent future legal problems.

          seems harsh, but also seem rather smart.

          Limiting your liability is one of the biggest issues most modern coporations face on a day to day basis.

        • by BitZtream (692029) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @01:03PM (#35233578)

          The BSD license software can be relicensed in a way that is compatible with their requirements.

          As is pretty typical, this is a GPL problem, not an OSS problem.

        • by BitZtream (692029)

          The LGPL and BSD licenses are not incompatible with app stores, but MS has banned them all*

          The BSD license is not incompatible and is in fact used with MANY software packages on the Apple app store. Apple is fully aware of it. I know they are, I've told them every single time I've submitted a new App.

          Neither is it incompatible with the MS store for that matter, but hey, why stop spreading the FUD when you're on a roll, eh?

          The only problem is with GPL and GPL-like licenses which prevent you from adding any other restrictions. This is an intentional feature of GPL.

          If you don't like it, you shoul

    • Re:"We own it" (Score:5, Informative)

      by mellon (7048) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @12:38PM (#35233266) Homepage

      The article seems to ignore the rather obvious point that the GPLv3 and LGPLv3 themselves forbid using covered software in app stores that apply anti-circumvention measures, such as the Windows 7 mobile app store or the Apple App Store. This is one of the improvements in the GPL between versions 2 and 3. The restriction is specific to GPLv3 licenses, and does not apply to GPLv2 licenses, nor to Apache, nor to BSD.

      It's always fun to paint Microsoft as the big villain, but what's going on here is what the FSF intended when they added the anti-tivoization clause to the GPL. That is to say, it's a good thing. If you want to run GPLv3 software in a Tivoized device, you have to jailbreak it first. You can't sell GPLv3 software in an app store unless the app store meets the restrictions of the GPL, and Microsoft's App Store does not.

      Now, one could turn around and say that Microsoft is bad for having an App store that violates the GPL, but given how cooperative Microsoft has been with jailbreakers, I really don't think one would have a rhetorical leg to stand on with this argument. It would work much better against Apple.

  • This makes no sense to me at all. Why would the status of the source code for software distributed through the app store interest Microsoft? Likely less than 1% of people would ever care to look at the source; many times fewer still would ever successfully compile it. I'm completely confused by this.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Why would the status of the source code for software distributed through the app store interest Microsoft?

      When you redistribute a program under the GPLv3, you grant the receiver a license to any patents that you own and that are used by that program.

      • I think the reason is that it may conflict with the Microsoft TOS.

        Look at the trouble Apple had posting stuff like VLC into the App Store and then had it removed via a lawsuit. Can you host Open-sourced apps if the store adds DRM to them or doesn't bundle the code in with the app?

        • by JWW (79176)

          Look at the trouble Apple had posting stuff like VLC into the App Store and then had it removed via a lawsuit. Can you host Open-sourced apps if the store adds DRM to them or doesn't bundle the code in with the app?

          It depends. The flap over VLC was because another developer ported the code and put it in the app store. I am of the opinion that a link on the app to a website where you could get the code would have met GPL requirements. In that case, if you had a jailbroken iPhone, iPad, whatever, you could compile that code and run it.

          I could definitely see an instance of a developer creating an open source app add submitting it to the app store. If they were the developer in charge of the app they could make the lic

          • As someone who has (and will not delete) the VLC app, I think the VLC developers made a big mistake in not allowing it to exist with a path to the code linked in the app.

            Disagree. This simple and reasonable freedom must be upheld. The Developers are right to prevent Apple from distributing the results of their hard work if Jobs wants to impose unreasonable restrictions on freedom. So now VLC benefits the Android community and not Apple. There's going to be more of that.

        • by Daniel Phillips (238627) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @11:36AM (#35232416)

          Can you host Open-sourced apps if the store adds DRM to them or doesn't bundle the code in with the app?

          Open source licenses do not require that the source code be bundled with the app, merely that it be available on request. I don't know about your DRM point, however I do know that pointing to Apple and saying "they do it too" is a logical fallacy for justifying evil. So is "you made me do it", which is what arguments revolving around the possibility of being sued for violating terms of an open source license amount to.

          • by Rockoon (1252108) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @11:54AM (#35232662)

            I do know that pointing to Apple and saying "they do it too" is a logical fallacy for justifying evil.

            You seem to be forgetting precisely why Apple does it too. Its because the authors of GPL software went after them. It isnt that Apple didn't want GPL software in the App Store, its that they got more grief from the copyright holders than it was worth.

            This idea that Apple is "evil" because they are disallowing GPL software is disingenuous at best. It began with GPL authors being the ones that disallowed their applications on the app store, so Apple says "We want to deal with only one entity, and entity that owns all the rights to the program. That GPL license just causes us grief. If you have the right to relicense it, then we can do business, otherwise we can't."

      • by mysidia (191772)

        When you redistribute a program under the GPLv3, you grant the receiver a license to any patents that you own and that are used by that program.

        Only if your only right to redistribute is the one provided by the GPLv3

        If you are acting as an agent of the copyright owner, or you have been given your own redistribution license from the copyright owner, you do not necessarily have to follow the GPL in regards to your redistribution of the work.

        For example, if the owner of the work hires another company ca

    • by Daniel Phillips (238627) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @11:29AM (#35232340)

      This makes no sense to me at all. Why would the status of the source code for software distributed through the app store interest Microsoft?

      It makes sense if you suppose that one of the prime directives Gates issued to Ballmer on handover was:

        1. Confront and eradicate open source wherever it gains a foothold regardless of the cost or collateral damage.

      A few of the innumerable examples:

        * Microsoft expending credibility and undermining ISO by forcing through MOOXML
        * Microsoft killing off the low cost netbook market in order to prevent Linux distribution
        * Microsoft planting a mole at great legal risk to end Meego and QT development by Nokia
        * This one, Microsoft not allowing distribution of open source applications through its phone market

      Its nice that nearly all these efforts have backfired and just served to inspire the community to greater efforts. I expect this one will backfire in a major way by preventing any open source community from forming around Microsoft's phones. So much the better I say.

    • by Dynedain (141758)

      The GPL specifcially states that if you distribute the binaries, you also must provide access to the source code. As the app store operator, MS doesn't have the ability to do this without adding extra functionality.

      Of course MS isn't going to want to take on extra responsibilities required of them by any random schmoe's copyright license. So instead, they require that anyone who wants to publish through them has to abide by their licensing requirements. If the license you want to release under doesn't meet

    • by PhilHibbs (4537)

      They aren't preventing the author from making the source code freely available. What they are saying is, "If you want us to distribute our software, don't apply a licence that forbids us from doing so."

      I don't see the problem, really, it's a no-brainer.

  • Incorrect. (Score:4, Informative)

    by gcnaddict (841664) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @10:35AM (#35231616)
    Microsoft banned the GPL, not open source overall.

    It's standard operating procedure for many companies to prohibit licenses which propagate themselves. Licenses such as BSD and Creative Commons are not prohibited.
    • by gcnaddict (841664) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @10:37AM (#35231644)
      Welcome to the world of tired mornings, I guess.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The GPL do not propagate, as long as you use it as a proprietary software, which means you don't use the source at all.

    • Re:Incorrect. (Score:4, Informative)

      by xaxa (988988) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @10:49AM (#35231818)

      Microsoft banned the GPL, not open source overall.

      No, Microsoft banned all open source:

      “Excluded License” means any license requiring, as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of the software subject to the license, that the software or other software combined and/or distributed with it be (i) disclosed or distributed in source code form; (ii) licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (iii) redistributable at no charge.

      GPLv3 is just given as an example.

      • by ewieling (90662)
        Does not sound like the BSD or MIT license would be covered by this.
        • by Dunbal (464142) *
          Imagine if Microsoft wrote a EULA prohibiting the Blue Screen of Death (BSD)! Oh, wait...
        • by Compholio (770966)

          Does not sound like the BSD or MIT license would be covered by this.

          There's an "or" in the list of "things that make a license excluded, one of those items is:

          (ii) licensed for the purpose of making derivative works

          I don't know about you, but that sounds to me like all the OSS licenses, including BSD and MIT, are covered. If you want to put up software that is licensed in any way to allow for modification and redistribution then they're not going to let you.

      • Re:Incorrect. (Score:5, Informative)

        by klapaucjusz (1167407) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @11:00AM (#35231958) Homepage

        Microsoft banned the GPL, not open source overall.

        No, Microsoft banned all open source:

        It would appear that Microsoft banned all copyleft licenses, notably all versions of the (L)GPL. It did not ban non-copyleft Free Software licenses, such as BSD or MIT/X11.

        • by xaxa (988988)

          Microsoft banned the GPL, not open source overall.

          No, Microsoft banned all open source:

          It would appear that Microsoft banned all copyleft licenses, notably all versions of the (L)GPL. It did not ban non-copyleft Free Software licenses, such as BSD or MIT/X11.

          Sorry, I should be more careful with my language...

        • I also find it hard to believe that they would exclude their own open source licenses on their own platform.

          Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL) [opensource.org]
          Microsoft Reciprocal License [opensource.org]

          Considering that Microsoft is more anti-copyleft than anti-open source, I would have to agree that the language is specifically against copyleft licenses.

      • Re:Incorrect. (Score:5, Informative)

        by Creepy (93888) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @11:29AM (#35232328) Journal

        The real target seems to be GPLv3, but the problem is the legalese is terrible, and the inclusion of an "or" instead of an "and" I would argue means each of these is mutually exclusive, which is much worse - it bans all free software, anything available in source form (even if dual-licensed), or, say, commercial game engines (which violate ii). Even if read as an "and" it still forbids all downloadable free libraries or plugins* where the source is available that have any license whatsoever.

        The terms for exclusion:
        (i) disclosed or distributed in source code form;
        (ii) licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or
        (iii) redistributable at no charge.

        * speaking of plugins, they are not considered GPL-able software despite many of them existing with GPL licenses - I suggested adding it during v3 ratification, but they did not feel there was a need (there are several clauses that make them not applicable), so if you write GPL plugins, I suggest moving to another license because the one you're using is not valid.

    • by LWATCDR (28044)

      I wonder why no one has produced or if they have publicized Synaptic for Windows.
      Of course there is already an app store for Windows. Steam! Maybe Valve would like to open it up to none game apps. "If they have not already". They could even open it up for FOSS programs. It might even offer a source of revenue up for the projects them. I would be glad to pay say $1.99 for Gimp on Windows, or LibreOffice, or any number of other FOSS programs I use on Windows.
      Truth is that I don't use windows much at home anym

      • Selling FOSS software is completely approved of in the GPL and an easy way to buy it may actually encourage people to pay for it and encourage people to write it.

        What guarantee do you have that the software is going to the people who wrote it though? Anyone is allowed to sell GPLed code.. and I don't see every single person that's ever contributed a patch to GIMP, LibreOffice etc getting recompensed for their work (plus many of them obviously don't require, and possibly don't even want such compensation).

  • Misleading Article (Score:5, Informative)

    by kwenf (1531623) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @10:36AM (#35231620)
    Only GPL was banned because of the ToS which is forbidden under the GPL. Same thing happened with Apple's AppStore [fsf.org].
    • So has the "ire of the open source community" been raised (prior to this submission), or was that a lie too?

    • OK, it's a PDF, but it would be nice if everybody (including those who modded it "informative") tried to RTFToS (http://create.msdn.com/downloads/?id=638 see item "L")

  • by o'reor (581921) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @10:36AM (#35231628) Journal

    but hides a nasty surprise for those who support open source ideals.

    It may be nasty all right, but it's certainly not a surprise, just Microsoft business as usual.

    • by PhilHibbs (4537)

      It's just GNU philosophy as usual, as well. The GPL is opposed to the whole locked-down philosophy of the App Store and Windows Market, so this is certainly not a surprise to me. It's like the USA banning the Communist Party. Sure, it's a breach of freedom, but an entirely expected and understandable one. And I'm sorry for bringing communism into it, I know the GPL isn't a commie plot, but it's too easy analogy to pass over.

  • The actual terms (Score:5, Informative)

    by xaxa (988988) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @10:38AM (#35231652)

    See the PDF [msdn.com].

      1.l

    “Excluded License” means any license requiring, as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of the software subject to the license, that the software or other software combined and/or distributed with it be (i) disclosed or distributed in source code form; (ii) licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (iii) redistributable at no charge. Excluded Licenses include, but are not limited to the GPLv3 Licenses. For the purpose of this definition, “GPLv3 Licenses” means the GNU General Public License version 3, the GNU Affero General Public License version 3, the GNU Lesser General Public License version 3, and any equivalents to the foregoing.

    5.e.

    The Application must not include software, documentation, or other materials that, in whole or in part, are governed by or subject to an Excluded License, or that would otherwise cause the Application to be subject to the terms of an Excluded License.

    • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Thursday February 17, 2011 @10:40AM (#35231690) Homepage Journal

      Well, now we know for sure that GPLv3 is desirable... Microsoft is against it. If only they could have taken this stance back when we were fighting over it, then we would have accepted GPLv3 without question.

      • Well, now we know for sure that GPLv3 is desirable... Microsoft is against it. If only they could have taken this stance back when we were fighting over it, then we would have accepted GPLv3 without question.

        They are also against killing puppies, you should look into that.

  • when microsoft has made various moves towards 'open source friendly' stance in the past 2 years, some of us have always been wary and critical of their moves, saying that microsoft was not a bunch to be trusted, based on their record. there were others who were slapping us with labels ranging from zealots to morons this, that. with numerous justifications.

    so, then. what's the justification this time ? im sure microsoft is doing this in good faith, and what they are doing is open source friendly.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Runaway1956 (1322357)
      I don't believe there is a justification. IMO, MS is a two-faced, underhanded opponent of open source. Sorry, I'm not going to waste time digging into the rationale - this is just something that I expect from Microsoft. What I see, is, Microsoft has bowed - at least temporarily - to the inevitability of open source software being in competition with their offerings. But, they want to steer the path that open source takes, as much as possible. Hence, the agreements with SUSE, and the restriction on the
    • by amliebsch (724858) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @10:54AM (#35231886) Journal

      The justification is very obvious: Microsoft doesn't want to violate the GPL. Since it feels that it cannot redistribute software in a manner that would comply with the GPL, it will not redistribute that software. This is how the GPL is *supposed* to work.

    • Actually, if you bothered to actually read the terms of service, you would realize that yes. Microsoft *IS* doing this in good faith. Licenses like the GPL make certain legal demands upon those that distribute the code. Microsoft does not wish to take on those responsibilities (namely that they have to be responsible for providing source code). There is also a more important legal risk. If any of those open source programs use technology covered by one of the patents Microsoft owns, then if they distri

  • More of the Same (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Foofoobar (318279)
    For every single C*O and marketing person that stands up and says how Microsoft LOVES open source, for every time Techcrunch and Techflash spouts how Microsoft is now open source friendly, things like this continue to happen. Their excuse no doubt is that no one would be making money when an open source product can sell just as well; not everyone wants to compile the source code!!

    But I suppose now I will have the 'mandated by Microsoft' attacks because I stated the obvious and get modded down. So be it.
  • Can anyone explain in plain non-legalese the difference between Apple's App Store and this Windows Marketplace, in terms of open source? Does either one allow GPL applications distributed? For a fee? IANAL and AFAIK, doesn't GPL 2 allow charging for distribution of executable code, as long as the source is available somewhere? Thanks---
    • Apple's App Store does not allow GPLv3 either, without digging though I can't remember if it is just GPLv3 or GPLv2 as well. They have to do it to protect themselves from lawsuit trolls, so Microsoft isnt doing anything wrong.
  • I see no issue here (Score:5, Informative)

    by Richard_at_work (517087) <richardprice.gmail@com> on Thursday February 17, 2011 @10:39AM (#35231678)
    The license specifically mentioned is the GPL, which if allowed would put the onus on Microsoft, as the distributor, to fulfill the requirements of the license even tho it was chosen by a developer. Microsoft is covering their own back here, nothing more imho - they could be up for some serious issues if they cocked up GPL compliance, so they are just not going there.
    • by i.r.id10t (595143)

      Easy enough to get around by requiring 2 apps from devs who want to use GPL stuff - the binary app, and the source app as a tarball or equivalent. Sorta like using "apt-get source packagefoo"

      • Microsoft would still be on the hook for identifying those apps, linking the apps and dealing with source code requests. All extra work, all with the potential for cockups. They are just avoiding the entire issue.
  • I wonder (Score:4, Insightful)

    by polyp2000 (444682) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @10:40AM (#35231692) Homepage Journal

    If this is really the case ?

    Having RTFA , It appears that they mention specifically the GPL. It does not however mention other Open Sources licenses.

    If this is really true , then you can expect it to be quite some time before you find many software packages you would think
    might appear in a short time in the market place. Emulators for example - most of the ones we all use are covered by Open Source
    license - so dont expect ports of your favorite Open Source projects to appear on Windows Mobile 7. ScummVM , MAME ... forget it ...

    You would be developing those from scratch - and these are projects that took years to come into fruition.

    Microsoft would be making a huge mistake banning outright Open Source - and no matter how much they hate it - its an ecosystem they cannot afford to ignore - especially when they are trying to woo developers away from Android.

    N.

  • Guess again (Score:5, Informative)

    by Stan Vassilev (939229) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @10:43AM (#35231740)

    Do you intentionally post wrong information so we can rush to angrily correct you in the comments?

    They ban only GPL variations and licenses like it that have *enforced* right to redistribute source. Licenses like Apache, MIT, BSD are not affected.

    This is the same as Apple's App Store. The line of thought that GPL is "infectious" and represents a risk for their closed source components is well known. Right or wrong, that's their motive, and they are taking precautions to protect themselves from lawsuit trolls.

  • Is it really a problem with open licensing, or is it a problem with viral licensing?
  • by miffo.swe (547642) <daniel,hedblom&gmail,com> on Thursday February 17, 2011 @10:51AM (#35231842) Homepage Journal

    This is good for Android more than its bad for Microsoft. Their goal seems to be making all apps costing money to avoid having a store like Androids where you can find both free excellent apps and very good paid apps living side by side.

    Im not sure this will work out as planned because tons of developers wont help if you dont have the userbase to support them.

  • Source code? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ArhcAngel (247594) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @10:54AM (#35231876)

    Perhaps Microsoft doesn't want to be burdened with hosting the requisite source code on their servers since they would be required to under the GPL.

  • STOP IT (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Jorl17 (1716772)
    Stop Giving Power To These Idiots: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1999586&cid=35231854 [slashdot.org]
  • by jonwil (467024) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @11:21AM (#35232248)

    Basically what Microsoft is banning is code covered by licenses that contain terms that would subject Microsoft code to the license or that contain terms that are incompatible with the Microsoft Windows Phone DRM and lockdowns (i.e. any license where its a violation to distribute the software in a way that cant be copied or modified or whatever)

    In simple terms it says that any code covered under a license that is incompatible with the marketplace rules is not allowed in the marketplace.

    The same thing happened with a GPLv3 app in the Apple App Store, it was removed because the GPLv3 is not compatible with the App Store DRM.

  • Evil triumphs, when good men do nothing. Note what this says, evil is not just what you do, it can also be what you don't do.

    A LOT of people have been finding excuses for MS for why not to do this, basically because it would mean a little bit extra work.

    Yes indeed, picking up someone who has fallen is extra work so that is a reason not to do it. But it makes you a pretty mean spirited person.

    MS COULD comply and simply do a tiny bit of extra work and thereby showing it is NO longer the bitter enemy of open s

  • by jfbilodeau (931293) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @11:53AM (#35232654) Homepage
    And here I was hoping to post a Linux Distro App on Windows Marketplace to install on users phone. The app would have provided security, stability and performance to the device. Oh well. Scratch that idea!
  • by jimicus (737525) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @12:12PM (#35232908)

    anything which can be explained by stupidity. Or, for that matter, planning.

    I suspect it's rather simpler than "Micro$oft hates GPL!!11oneone", and has nothing to do with any particular hatred of the GPL and related licenses.

    Let's say, for the sake of argument, you're building an apps store in the style of Apple. It's going to look all pretty, it's going be dead simple to download anything, people can submit apps, they go through an approval process, they go on the store. Installing is a matter of "click once", and that's about the only thing you're going to make visible to the end user.

    You anticipate having thousands of apps sooner rather than later, so the complicated part isn't going to be the website. It's going to be putting together the business logic and processes that drive it.

    The problem with something like the GPL is that all of a sudden, your process for accepting for approval, approval itself and distributing software suddenly becomes a hell of a lot more complicated because you now need to keep track of whether or not an application requires the source code to be made available. Remember the GPL applies to anyone distributing the software, so you can't just palm this back to the developer. You now need a separate interface to your apps store from the developer site which allows downloading source code where available, you need to keep track of which apps have which licenses - and you need to track which licenses specifically state "You must distribute source code".

    Unless you took this into account when you designed the apps store and the processes behind it (which is likely if you're Google, but vanishingly unlikely if you're Microsoft), you now have a problem. Your entire process is set up on the assumption that you are under no obligation to distribute the source code for apps, this throws a spanner in the works. What is the cheapest, quickest, easiest solution?

    1. Ban licenses which demand you distribute source code such as the GPL.
    2. Go back and rewrite all your processes to account for licensing issues. Any software developed around those processes will also need changing.

    TL;DR : More likely that Microsoft don't care enough about F/OSS to bother accounting for it in their processes for their app store.

"Mach was the greatest intellectual fraud in the last ten years." "What about X?" "I said `intellectual'." ;login, 9/1990

Working...